(10-04-2017, 04:03 PM)Verad Wrote:(10-04-2017, 03:55 PM)ExAtomos Wrote: True. But while it does give your RP partners more details, it is not something they would actually see icly. If your dude is hiding due to trauma, rather than from wrongdoing, how am I at that time able to tell the difference? If, however, you were to type something along the lines of: "Franco dashed behind the pillar at the sight of the oncoming Imperials. Sweat popped out on his forehead and he shook with fear. His eyes seemed to be unfocused, as though reliving nightmares of his past." All of this is stuff your RP partner can actually see ICly.
As she mentioned, the purpose is to give the player something to read rather than something to react to in an IC fashion. If you are of the opinion that if it can't be acted upon by a character in response, it shouldn't be there, then it will be inappropriate regardless of how directly or obliquely it's described.Â
Your own alternative would lead to objections on the grounds that it assumes an interpretation on the other player's behalf. I've seen that argued as inappropriate on these forums in the past, to the extent that even vague descriptors like "beautiful" shouldn't be used because every character will have a slightly different conception of beauty.
This has the unfortunate side-effect of annihilating most potential uses of dramatic irony in posts, but that's apparently a small price to pay for ensuring total player agency.
Aha, so at this point it's just differing RP styles regarding the use of description in emotes.
I'll still hold that insulting someone via internal monologue is a bad thing.
